Has the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sold the naming rights to what was meant to be a symbol of American freedom? The Port Authority recently announced the name “Freedom Tower” is being dropped for “One World Trade Center.”
The 1,776-foot tower is planned to replace, along with three other smaller buildings, the hole in lower Manhattan left by terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The name “Freedom Tower” was coined by then Governor of New York George Pataki, and was meant as a patriotic symbol of resistance against an evil ideology that threatens American brand freedom.
Eight years later, the Port Authority has backed away from the name, perhaps fearing that its political overtones and potential for inviting repeat attacks are not conducive to getting high-paying tenants.
But there may be more to this sudden name change.
Consider this, something that’s been reported widely but no one has apparently connected the dots on: The announced name change from “Freedom Tower” to “One World Trade Center” was accompanied by news that the structure had signed a lease with the China Center, a 190,810-square-foot “business and cultural facility.” Rest assured, it’s not a private venture.
This means a large space in the new structure will be occupied by a foreign regime, the Chinese Communist Party, which doesn’t think democracy is right for it and that heavily censors all forms of media and the Internet.
In fact, it’s the same regime that hasn’t apologized for or even acknowledged the massacre of unarmed student protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, that launched a brutal persecution against the peaceful Falun Gong spiritual group in 1999, and that is so twisted that it installs its own “Dalai Lama” and “Catholic bishop” in an attempt to control the masses. With an estimated eighty million deaths to its credit, the Chinese regime’s list of heinous acts are too long to list here.
Is it possible that the China Center, a potential tenant, put their offer on the table to help occupy the two-thirds empty tower, with one little catch?
This is nothing more than conjecture. But the name change and the China Center’s lease signing do seem oddly coincidental. Also, it’s clear that the Port Authority had some concerns about securing tenants, otherwise the name change wouldn’t have been necessary.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.